Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1887-09-01
MORE WOOD COUNTY BRIDGE.
To tile people Of Wood Coaety.'-

An article with the above head
ing appears in the last Marshheld
Times, from the pen of Charles A.
Coon, Esq. 1t is supplemental
to the effort of Mr.. Lathrop, re-
published and answered last week,
is in the same tenor and spirit,
and was substantially answered
and refuted in advance by the
answer to Mr.. Lathrop. But Mr..
Coon is a plausible writer, and is,
with all his faults" a personal
friend, and it may not be the
proper thing to pass his article by
without special mention. The
substance of what he says may be
substantially repeated in a few
propositions, as follows:
1.-The procuring of bridge
charter in 1865, authorizing COM
pany to build and operate toll
bridge, with a provision author
izing the county at a future time,
in its discretion, to purchase the
bridge and thereafter to maintain
it as a free bridge, was mean"
and dishonest" "a fraud upon
the people of the County! That
while the provision allowing the
County, at its option, to purchase
the bridge, had the appearance Of
fairness" it was in fact fraud
because "the same persons who
obtained the charter were on hand
at the proper time to see that the
County did purchase the bridge,
and at a valuable consideration"
1.-The action of "the men"
who thus foisted the bridge upon
the County were guilty of con-
duct more infamous than the "shot
gun" policy, and the people are
under no obligations whatever to
stand by the arrangements then
made HI otter localities build
and maintain their own bridges
except Lincoln County, (where the
people z0anted to build a bridge;)
while in Wood County it was done
by "designing persons" against the
wishes of the majority!
3.-If the cost of maintaining
the bridge is trivial, "all the more
shame to the twin cities" But it
is not the bmden that is complained
of. 1t is the unjust brlncibLe of re-
curing people 0utstde those cities
to aid in maintaining bridge in
Grand Rapids and Centralia. The
principle contended for is that of
our fathers in I776!
4.-Six distinct questions are
asked and answered, by means of
which Mr.. Coon manages to again
assert, as follows: lit was for
the direct interest of the peo-
pie of Centralia and Grand Rapids
that the toll bridge was erected, and
that its charter contained the pro-
vision authorizing it to be bought
and maintained by the county, as
a free bridge. 2.-It was for the
"direct interests of these cities"
that the bridge was purchased in
1873, and new one built in 1877.
Sit was for the interests" of
these cities that the G. B. R. r.
stock was sold for five cents on
the dollar, and a new Court House
built in 1881. At was for the
"d1rect interests of these two
cities" that the County Poor farm
was located at or near them.
These several assertions are again
followed by others to the effect
that these cities have, alzVays
schemed to get, at the expense of
the County, two dollars of benefit
for one in cash, and such is
their purpose now in advocating
the building of County roads and
bridges.
Let us very briefly see what
there is to these several PROPOSE
tons, and at the risk of repetition,
dispose of each in its order:
1.-The legislation of 1865, in
Guiding the provision authorizing
the County, after a term of years,
at its option, to purchase the
bridge and thereafter to maintain
it as a free bridge, was necessity
of the time, obtained in the
interest of the whole people of
the County, and in pursuance of a
general demand to that effect
and especially SO from a majority
of the people then residing west
of the river, and away from Cen
tralia and Grand Rapids. This
fact has been so often shown and
is so we'll established that there
can be but little excuse for con-
tinued assertions to the contrary.
The County was simply enabled,
if the people should feel SO dis
posed, and not otherwise, to pur-
chase the bridge, and thereafter
maintain it as a free bridge. The